
Topology Topology Math Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
July 20th, 2016, 07:30 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,175 Thanks: 90  Number Systems and Basis of Real Analysis Decimals, Points on a Unit Line, and the Natural Numbers Start with 1 and put n1 zeroes in front of it and a decimal point, .00001 for example. This defines a division of the unit line into 10^5 increments. The increment points on the line can then be labelled and counted off sequentially: 0 .00001 .00002 .00003 ....... .99999 1 As n approaches infinity, the points on the line approach all the real numbers and the numbering of the points on the line approaches the set of all the natural numbers. The Natural Numbers, Points on a Unit Line, and the Continuum Every natural number q corresponds to a division of a unit line into q segments. Label the increment points p/q, p=1...q. This establishes a direct connection between the natural numbers, points on a unit line, and the continuum as q approaches infinity. The decimal system above is the special case of q=10^n. q could also be 2^n, 3^n, 4^n,.... A point of 0 width doesn't exist any more than infinity exists, other than as a concept or a notation. Infinity means countable infinity, of course. A unit line is any line you call 1, the meter for example. Last edited by skipjack; July 20th, 2016 at 11:05 AM. 
July 20th, 2016, 09:02 AM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,073 Thanks: 695 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
Moved from thread about books and source material Zylo...
Last edited by skipjack; July 20th, 2016 at 11:09 AM. 
July 20th, 2016, 10:37 AM  #3  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,031 Thanks: 2342 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Yet again you have demonstrated your ignorance of the difference between potential infinity and actual infinities. You also demonstrate your ignorance of logic, since your ravings do not indicate any flaws in existing proofs that contradict your result. Yes, points exist as concepts. That is exactly what they are. Similarly for infinities. Both exist in appropriate contexts. All of mathematics is conceptual. If you want more physical constructs, you must study physics. Last edited by skipjack; July 20th, 2016 at 11:04 AM.  
July 20th, 2016, 10:14 PM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: May 2016 From: USA Posts: 823 Thanks: 335 
Well, Archie you were right. He is dealing with limits, at least in this post. I am getting amused by the looseness of his arguments. As we increase the number of cuts on the line, we obviously get closer to a greater number of reals. Start with 0.5. Now add cuts at 0.25 and 0.75. Obviously all real numbers less that 0.375 are closer to 0.25 than to 0.5. The distance has been reduced from < 0.5 to < 0.25. Now conceive of a denumerably infinite number of such cuts, dividing the line into a denumerably infinite number of open intervals. (I think you are saying such a conception is invalid, but let's accept it.) When he says "This establishes ..." nothing has been established except a denumerably infinite number of cuts. Effectively he is assuming one real number in each cut. If that were so, he would have shown the required 1to1 correspondence.. But he has no argument whatsoever on why there is only one real number in each cut. In fact, he does not even explicitly state this crucial step. He implicitly assumes that which is to be proven. 
July 20th, 2016, 11:55 PM  #5  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,031 Thanks: 2342 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
In terms of Zylo's beloved limits, the quantity of numbers between each pair of cuts is constant for each $n$, so the limit as $n$ grows without bound is that same infinite quantity. This is just as $\lim \limits_{n \to \infty} a = a$ for any constant $a$. (Of course, in this case we kind of have $a=\mathfrak c$ or $a = \aleph_0$ depending on whether we are counting reals or naturals and it's highly debatable how much sense that makes, but that's what happens when you take nonsense as the starting point for a discussion). Last edited by skipjack; July 21st, 2016 at 03:19 AM.  
July 21st, 2016, 12:15 AM  #6  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,031 Thanks: 2342 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
However, it doesn't change that his method doesn't get us to the set of points coinciding with the set of reals. Last edited by skipjack; July 21st, 2016 at 03:20 AM.  
July 21st, 2016, 02:27 AM  #7 
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,073 Thanks: 695 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions 
Kudos to SkipJack for moving the thread! 
July 21st, 2016, 03:04 AM  #8 
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,401 Thanks: 479 Math Focus: Yet to find out. 
What's also amusing is everyone's reference to Zylo in third person. As if he's a bot or something... Oh wait..

July 21st, 2016, 06:17 AM  #9 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,031 Thanks: 2342 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
There's no point in directing comments at him, because he just ignores everything that disagrees with his fantasy.


Tags 
analysis, basis, number, real, systems 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Prove between Real Analysis and Complex Analysis  uniquesailor  Real Analysis  2  January 3rd, 2012 10:56 PM 
coordinate Systems, standard basis question  jsdieorksw  Linear Algebra  1  November 2nd, 2010 01:07 PM 
real analysis  rose3  Real Analysis  1  October 22nd, 2009 11:00 AM 
real analysis  rose3  Real Analysis  1  September 25th, 2009 06:12 PM 
real analysis  rose3  Real Analysis  2  September 1st, 2009 10:35 AM 